Home > General > Dianne Feinstein Introduces Assault Weapons Ban

Dianne Feinstein Introduces Assault Weapons Ban

January 24th, 2013

 

No one cares what I have to say anyway.  Let’s just get right to the heart of the matter:

 

Huffingtonpost.com:

 

Feinstein spent nearly a year crafting the bill and said she did her best to keep it specifically focused on “guns designed for military use and used for mass murder.”

“No weapons will be taken from anyone,” she emphasized. “The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”

Weapons List

Own one by the day the legilslation is signed in to law or do without.

 

Categories: General Tags:
  1. January 24th, 2013 at 16:48 | #1

    And yet she STILL failed spectacularly because not one of those is “designed” for military use and 99.9999% have not been used for mass murder.

    And she’s lying. Weapons WILL be taken from people since you cannot transfer them.

    • January 24th, 2013 at 17:35 | #2

      Put on that foil hat and tell me how the weapons will be taken? Will Senator Feinstein, who is nearly 80 years old, steal up to your house at night and demand you assault weapon?

      Also, should we wait to put those guns on the list until someone performs mass murder with one? Define mass murder. How many dead does that involve?

  2. January 24th, 2013 at 17:03 | #3

    “No one cares what I have to say anyway. ”

    Yes we do, if you don’t say anything we can’t post annoying, cynical or snarky comments in response.

  3. January 24th, 2013 at 17:15 | #5

    @Moon-howler
    But…but… that’s no fun.

    Anyway….by now, I’ve already said it elsewhere unless someone has a question or comment.

  4. January 24th, 2013 at 18:57 | #6

    The weapons will be illegal to own by anyone not grandfathered in. They will not be allowed to be sold. They will be registered. Once you are dead, your family must turn them in or face imprisonment. They will fall under the NFA Act of 1934, which is what currently controls access to automatic weapons. Effectively, ownership of regular rifles will be outlawed.

    They should not be put on a list at all. The GUNS do not commit murder. Timothy McVeigh used no guns. Cho used handguns including one limited to the 10 round limit. Furthermore, all crime committed with rifles equals about .6% of crimes committed. Mass murder with an “assault weapon?”

    Here’s Mother Jones’ definition on their study:

    The shooter took the lives of at least four people. An FBI crime classification report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location.
    The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, both of which involved two shooters.)
    The shootings occured in a public place. (Except in the case of a party in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included.
    If the shooter died or was hurt from injuries sustained during the incident, he is included in the total victim count. (But we have excluded many cases in which there were three fatalities and the shooter also died, per the above FBI criterion.)
    We included six so-called “spree killings”—high-profile cases that fit closely with our above criteria for mass murder, but in which the killings occurred in more than one location over a short period of time.

    Out of 142 shooting, 35 were done using an “assault weapon.” The type of rifle is not describe. There are 3 million AR type rifles in common use today. Add in another couple of million for the other types…AK types have to be near a million, at least.
    But lets leave it with the AR type rifle. And declare arbitrarily that ALL of the “assault weapons” were AR types. 35 out of 3 million.

    99.9996% of gun owners did not commit a murder. They should be left alone. The courts have determined that weapons in common use are protected by the 2nd Amendment. These rifles are in common use.

    Just like you say about abortion….. if you don’t want an “assault weapon,” don’t get one.

    • January 24th, 2013 at 20:47 | #7

      Cargo,

      Sorry, the abortion language is not on loan. I also don’t think that abortion should be without any restrictions, for obvious reasons.

      If you lived on an island and had no way to get to the rest of us, then I wouldn’t care what you owned. However, that isn’t the way it works.

      I don’t believe anyone can own whatever gun they want. I have seen no document thaat suggests that either.

      Finally, I see it as a selfish move. Many a few people could live without their assault weapons for the good of us all. We have the worst statistics of any modern country. More gun deaths, not to mention injuries of any county.

      I remain unconvinced. However, I don’t see Dianne Feinstein going house to house collecting anyones guns. Again, you keep changing the goal posts. Now you have included dead people in your argument. That’s just too ripe. Waaaaaaaaaahhhh! I can’t give my assault rifle to my kid. Well, smart people just keep their mouths shut. My bottom line is, who cares. Now there’s a reason to endagner the rest of us!

  5. January 24th, 2013 at 19:02 | #8

    Sorry…. rifles were .o4%, well at least in 2010. And its dropped since then.

    FBI figures show just 358 of the 8,775 murders by firearm in 2010 involved rifles of any type. Original data from FBI from 2010 [Source: [www.fbi.gov] ]

    By the way, the data that was pulled from noted that in 2010, more people were beaten to death by fists (758) than were killed by “other guns”, aka rifles of any sort.

  6. Lady Emma
    January 24th, 2013 at 21:58 | #9

    Arbitrarily chosen limits on magazine capacities, arbitrarily chosen firearms to ban, based on no science or valid statistics whatsoever. This from the same crowd who can’t be bothered to read a bill or to pass a budget.

    We need a really heavy snowstorm to keep these derelicts at home for at least a week before they can do more damage.

  7. Starryflights
    January 24th, 2013 at 22:02 | #10

    I think there should be some type of buy-back, say, $5000 for every assault weapon turned in. That would help.

  8. Lady Emma
    January 24th, 2013 at 22:12 | #11

    Yes, that’s it!!! This way all the criminals will get the cash and never commit a gun crime again.

    Starry, you’re a genius!

  9. January 24th, 2013 at 22:28 | #12

    @Lady Emma
    Lady Emma, I think that’s a great idea that Starry has. THIS is an assault weapon in the eyes of the ATF:

    http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-amp-action-parts/receivers/lower-receivers/ar-15-lower-receivers-prod22499.aspx

    It is legally considered a gun.
    I’ll be happy to go purchase a truck load to sell to the gov’t at $5K.

    Heck, I’d be happy to go buy actual fully built Bushmasters and sell them in the buy back. Those run around 1500 – 2500 Bucks.

  10. January 24th, 2013 at 22:29 | #13

    Actually, voluntary buybacks are fine with me. That’s not confiscation.

    I like it when gun buyers show up at those police gun buy backs and offer more money. Many a collectible has been saved.

  11. January 25th, 2013 at 12:47 | #14

    @Moon-howler
    The thing is that it is still confiscation from living people, so, no, I did not move the goal posts. And its not just a “few” people. MILLIONS own these rifles. And they are used for self defense.

  12. Rick Bentley
    January 25th, 2013 at 13:22 | #15

    Can’t help but think that the two parties have found another show issue to argue abhout while the real issues affecting our future don’t get discussed (mounting debt, wage disparity, illegal immigration).

  13. Lady Emma
    January 25th, 2013 at 13:42 | #16

    @Cargosquid This would be a great opportunity for the Mexican beneficiaries of the “Fast and Furious” weapons to make a little extra side cash! Maybe even make a few bucks on the weapon that killed our border agent. Wow, karma can be a bitch.

  14. January 25th, 2013 at 13:54 | #17

    @Rick Bentley
    Yes.

    @Lady Emma
    I’m waiting on Mexico to demand an investigation with deportation of the guilty parties.

  15. January 25th, 2013 at 16:06 | #18

    @Lady Emma and Cargo

    Huge Goofy laugh…GUH-HYUK!?

  16. January 26th, 2013 at 00:42 | #19

    @Moon-howler
    I don’t understand your reply. Are you saying that the facilitation by the ATF of the smuggling of thousands of rifles to the cartels in Mexico is a joke? That the death of two American agents and hundreds of Mexican citizens, by criminals using weapons supplied by our government, is something to ignore?

  17. January 26th, 2013 at 03:16 | #20

    I didn’t mention any facilitation. My guffawing was sarcasm. Nice hi-jacking attempt.

    As for ignoring- yea, for now. It doesn’t belong in this thread. I am not going to do a thread on it. Too controversial. You weren’t there and I wasn’t there.

  18. Pat.Herve
    January 26th, 2013 at 07:48 | #21

    I wonder how people would feel if they experienced a tragedy first hand. Diane Feinstein did witness first hand what a weapon does is someones hand who is determined to kill someone. Yes, it was a revolver, but the experience does shape your view on things – I wonder what she felt about assault weapons before the assassination?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone%E2%80%93Milk_assassinations

  19. Lady Emma
    January 26th, 2013 at 10:35 | #22

    @Cargosquid You really need to stop commenting on things where you weren’t there personally to witness exactly what happened. For me, that would narrow down my commenting for this morning to the breakfast shake I made.

  20. Lady Emma
    January 26th, 2013 at 10:35 | #23

    @Cargosquid You really need to stop commenting on things where you weren’t there personally to witness exactly what happened. For me, that would narrow down my commenting for this morning to the breakfast shake I made.

  21. January 26th, 2013 at 11:01 | #24

    @Lady Emma
    That would probably be helpful actually. Would it prevent hi-jacking of a thread also?

    It should be perfectly obvious that isn’t going to be a discussion topic on this blog. I can be much ruder than I was in the other comment.

  22. January 27th, 2013 at 19:21 | #25

    @Moon-howler
    I think Lady Emma was pointing out that most of the threads would be blank if we did that. And it wasn’t a hijack. It was a comment to Lady Emma and a response to the guffaw. You didn’t mention any facilitation…no. I was asking if you cared since you found it so amusing. But don’t bother answering. I know that nothing that might criticize the Anointed One will be discussed nor, as you say..is this a thread for it.

    I was just commenting on Lady Emma’s comment. No hijack intended.

    Rick Bentley :
    Can’t help but think that the two parties have found another show issue to argue abhout while the real issues affecting our future don’t get discussed (mounting debt, wage disparity, illegal immigration).

    Completely agree.

  23. January 27th, 2013 at 23:24 | #26

    Don’t worry, Comprehensive Immigration will be here in about a week.

    As for the guffaw, that isn’t what I do when I think something is funny. I guffaw over lame.

  24. January 28th, 2013 at 07:56 | #27

    @Moon-howler
    Oh, I understood the guffaw and your disdain for those that expose/publicize any scandals committed by this administration.

Comments are closed.